Estado de la incorporación de tics en el aula y su relación con el desarrollo de procesos

Today, most commentators describe the European Union as a power of the past. Europe’s relative economic power is declining and its common currency has all but disintegrated, shattering confidence in the entire European project in the process. On the world stage, the EU is thought to be waning into irrelevance due to its deepening internal divisions and inability to speak with one voice. There is no common European army to respond to the security threats that abound, both near and far. Given its seemingly declining power status and inability to get its way alone, the EU is left to retreat to weak multilateralism and international institutions, ceding the stage of world politics to more potent actors.1

Yet this narrative underestimates a critical aspect of European influence: the EU’s unilateral power to regulate global markets. It is no secret that the EU likes rules and regulations. What is less well understood is the extent to which these rules and regulations have penetrated global markets and influenced economic life abroad, affecting many of the products foreign consumers use every day, including computer software, children’s toys, cosmetics, and household appliances. The EU’s influence over global production patterns and business practices takes place through a process that I have described as unilateral regulatory globalisation, or the “Brussels Effect”.2

1 See the discussion of this conventional view in Anu Bradford and Eric A. Posner, “Universal Exceptionalism in International Law”, Harvard International Law Journal, Volume 52, Number 1, 2011; and Jed Rubenfeld, “Unilateralism and Constitutionalism”, New York University Law Review, Volume 79, 2004, pp. 1971, 1975–76, 2005–06.

2 Anu Bradford, “The Brussels Effect”, Northwestern University Law Review, Volume 107, Number 1, 2013.

15

Because the EU has the world’s largest single market, most multinational companies depend on access to the region. This requires compliance with EU standards. While multinationals could, in principle, adopt one set of standards for Europe and other sets of standards for the rest of the world, scale economies and other benefits of uniform production make this unlikely. By choosing the most stringent standard to govern their global conduct or production, companies can ensure regulatory compliance worldwide. In this way, market forces alone are often sufficient to convert the EU standard into a global standard – without the need for the EU to engage in international cooperation or unilateral coercion.

The unilateral power to set standards for the global marketplace is not merely a function of the size of an economy. Of course, any jurisdiction willing to exert global regulatory influence must have a large domestic market and hence a sizeable domestic economy.3 _But

a global regulator must also possess significant regulatory capacity, together with the political will to enact strict regulatory standards.4

Further, to have global clout a regulator must pursue immobile targets that cannot easily relocate to another jurisdiction (e.g. consumer markets) as opposed to mobile targets that can (e.g. capital). Finally, the benefits of adopting a uniform global standard must exceed the benefits of adhering to multiple, including laxer, regulatory standards. This is particularly the case when it is not legally or technically feasible, or economically viable, for a firm to maintain different standards in different markets – known as “non-divisible” production.

These five determinants of unilateral global regulatory power – market size, regulatory capacity, preference for strict standards, immobile targets, and non-divisibility of production – explain why the EU has become a predominant regulator of global commerce. The EU has the world’s largest internal market, supported by strong regulatory institutions. Trading with the EU requires foreign companies to adjust their conduct or production to EU standards – which often represent the most stringent standards – or else forgo the market entirely. Rarely is the latter an option. In addition, companies cannot undermine EU

3 Daniel W. Drezner, “Globalization, harmonization, and competition: the different pathways to policy convergence”, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 12, 2005, pp. 841, 841–59.

4 David Bach and Abraham L. Newman, “The European regulatory state and global public policy: micro- institutions, macro-influence”, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 14, Issue 6, 2007, pp. 827, 831.

rules by moving regulatory targets to another jurisdiction because the EU primarily regulates immobile consumer markets as opposed to more mobile capital markets. While the EU regulates only its internal market, multinational corporations often have an incentive to standardise their production globally and adhere to a single rule. This converts the EU rule into a global rule, expanding its influence across the global market.

The EU’s regulatory influence cannot be matched by other economic powers, such as the United States or China. China’s regulatory capacity will take time to build, and it is unlikely to be willing to elevate the protection of consumers and the environment over wealth creation any time soon. The US does have well-entrenched and highly capable regulatory institutions, but lacks the political will to deploy these to maintain a highly regulated economy. And when the US regulates, it often focuses on more mobile targets such as capital, which can easily move jurisdictions to evade strict regulations.

Foreign governments are often unenthusiastic about the EU’s ability to diffuse its regulations abroad. Critics depict the EU as a “regulatory imperialist” that overrides consumer preferences and democratic processes in other jurisdictions.5 _{Yet other countries can do little to}

counterbalance the EU’s regulatory hegemony. Those whose regulatory preferences are superseded by the EU’s standards gain nothing by entering into a regulatory race. Outpacing the EU will only leave them with even higher, and hence less desirable, regulatory standards. They also have limited ability to dampen the EU’s regulatory ambitions with sanctions or by resorting to international institutions. This makes them passive spectators of the process where the markets are unleashed to spread EU norms and entrench them in global markets.